Apostacy

[prisonchaplain]

Along the lines of this topic, I have a question. I once asked this of a Lutheran friend of mine, and he kind of went nuts on me, but here goes:

Didn't the Protestants start up because they thought that the Catholic church had gone "out of the way"? Admittedly, my knowledge on this is slim, but I thought that Martin Luther had had it with indulgences and other things so he posted his 29 or 99 or some such thing grievances against the church on the door. And the same for Wyckliffe and Calvin and the others...

If I'm wrong, pls let me know, but why would there be a need for a reformation if there hadn't been an apostasy (in the eyes of these men, admittedly) within the Catholic church?

The last few posts (supporting the LDS teaching on apostasy) comes down to a simple question: Did the church die? When Catholics and Protestants hear of this Great Apostasy, our understanding is that LDS are teaching that the true church died. The idea that there was no true church for upwards of 1500 years (give or take a couple centuries) is indeed apalling.

Yes, Martin Luther protested corruption in the church. Yes, the Reformation sought further "reforms." Yes, the Salvation Army formed, because other churches refused to take in reforming alcoholics from the wrong side of the tracks. Yes, Pentecostals formed because they believed some important aspects of New Testament church practice were neglected. But, none of these claimed the church was dead.

That's the distinction.

[Jason]

The entire Apostasy argument boils down to faith and authority.

Did the Church lose it's authority, and require a restoration, or not?

If it did not, then you have a host of churches to choose from: Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Old Catholics, Anglicans, and their various splinter churches.

If the Church did lose it's authority, you still have a host of choices: LDS-SLC, COC/RLDS/Restorationists, Strangites, Bickertonites, Allreds, Johnstons, LeBarons, etc, etc, etc.

[Doctor Steuss]

The entire Apostasy argument boils down to faith and authority.

Did the Church lose it's authority, and require a restoration, or not?

If it did not, then you have a host of churches to choose from: Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Old Catholics, Anglicans, and their various splinter churches.

If the Church did lose it's authority, you still have a host of choices: LDS-SLC, COC/RLDS/Restorationists, Strangites, Bickertonites, Allreds, Johnstons, LeBarons, etc, etc, etc.

There's a third option that I've recently been seeing put forth by some non-denominationalists.

The creation of "authority" was the apostasy. I've never seen any evidence put forth (other than a few biblical proof-texts). But once you look at the ANF, I think (IMHO) it becomes a strenuous position to maintain (unless of course they think they church apostatized directly after Christ's death).

[mdb]

Trust the man who is seeking for truth, don't believe the man who claims to have found it.

What about the man who claims to be the truth? Do you believe Him?

A man seeking the truth is wise, but if a man claiming to already have found it is proved to have done so, I'd believe him.

[sixpacktr]

<div class='quotemain'>

Along the lines of this topic, I have a question. I once asked this of a Lutheran friend of mine, and he kind of went nuts on me, but here goes:

Didn't the Protestants start up because they thought that the Catholic church had gone "out of the way"? Admittedly, my knowledge on this is slim, but I thought that Martin Luther had had it with indulgences and other things so he posted his 29 or 99 or some such thing grievances against the church on the door. And the same for Wyckliffe and Calvin and the others...

If I'm wrong, pls let me know, but why would there be a need for a reformation if there hadn't been an apostasy (in the eyes of these men, admittedly) within the Catholic church?

The last few posts (supporting the LDS teaching on apostasy) comes down to a simple question: Did the church die? When Catholics and Protestants hear of this Great Apostasy, our understanding is that LDS are teaching that the true church died. The idea that there was no true church for upwards of 1500 years (give or take a couple centuries) is indeed apalling.

Yes, Martin Luther protested corruption in the church. Yes, the Reformation sought further "reforms." Yes, the Salvation Army formed, because other churches refused to take in reforming alcoholics from the wrong side of the tracks. Yes, Pentecostals formed because they believed some important aspects of New Testament church practice were neglected. But, none of these claimed the church was dead.

That's the distinction.

Thanks PC.

I know what we teach, and of course I believe that. However, I guess what I'm getting at is this: do the Protestant religions consider themselves as a reform of a corrupt church, one that had apostasized, or as reformers of the true church that had gotten slightly out of the way? Do the Protestant religions still consider the Catholic church as God's church, just like their's is (kind of a "multiple ways to heaven" approach)?

Thanks for your input...

[prisonchaplain]

I know what we teach, and of course I believe that. However, I guess what I'm getting at is this: do the Protestant religions consider themselves as a reform of a corrupt church, one that had apostasized, or as reformers of the true church that had gotten slightly out of the way? Do the Protestant religions still consider the Catholic church as God's church, just like their's is (kind of a "multiple ways to heaven" approach)?

Thanks for your input...

Most Protestants follow Luther in believing that it is faith that leads to heaven, through grace--a faith that produces works (lots of faith/works threads going already B) ). Therefore, it's not the church or apostolic succession (authority) that leads to the Kingdom of God, it's faith in Jesus, repentence from sin, and embracing the eternal life he offers.

With that in mind, all churches might be labeled "corrupt" (imperfect). But, from the Protestant perspective, there is always a remnant--always those believers who are heaven-bound, despite difficulties in the household of faith.

To give you a local example. There was a church in our area that, from an evangelical perspective, was a strong, Bible-believing, soul-saving, disciple-growing group. A wave of spiritual fadishness and false teaching came through, and the leadership chose to embrace it. Over the course of about two years the church collapsed, some families were deeply hurt, and today the campus is a law enforcement training center.

So, what happened to the people? A few weak ones probably fell away. Others filtered into surrounding churches that maintained a true faith. We have at least one of those couples in our church.

Most Protestants reject the idea that salvation is found in church authority and rituals and church offices (priesthood that is granted by humans). Rather, we believe all followers of Christ are called as mediators between God and those not reconciled to him. We are all evangelists, all missionaries, and ambassadors. Our leaders (pastors, etc.) are really coaches, training the team for spiritual work.

[prisonchaplain]

[The only difference I see between Protestantism and the LDS is one believed a reformation was needed whereas the other believed a restoration was needed. ... We all think we have the best “truth,” the only difference is that the LDS officially believe they have it while everyone else unofficially believes they have it.

You are correct in the broadest sense. Evangelicals in particular, and most Protestants, and to some extent, even most Catholics, do believe there is one way of salvation--through Jesus Christ. So, in essence, we do insist that only Christians (and perhaps some Jews) will enter the kingdom of heaven.

However, what the LDS have done is officially declared the Church a gatekeeper to the Celestial Kingdom. I can worship God in a Methodist, Episcopalean, Baptist, Pentecostal, and even a Catholic Church. I would look around and believe that most in the company would be with me in the kingdom of heaven--the same kingdom I will be in.

So, this "minor" different between reform and restoration (resurrection???) is actually quite significant, imho.

[Doctor Steuss]

You are correct in the broadest sense. Evangelicals in particular, and most Protestants, and to some extent, even most Catholics, do believe there is one way of salvation--through Jesus Christ. So, in essence, we do insist that only Christians (and perhaps some Jews) will enter the kingdom of heaven.

This might blow your mind, but LDS also believe there is one way of salvation, and that is through Jesus Christ. Where the schism occurs is LDS tend to think there are a few more things He asked of His disciples.

However, what the LDS have done is officially declared the Church a gatekeeper to the Celestial Kingdom.

True to an extent. But, LDS believe that Christ is at the head of the Church, so thusly it is Christ who is the "gatekeeper."

I can worship God in a Methodist, Episcopalean, Baptist, Pentecostal, and even a Catholic Church. I would look around and believe that most in the company would be with me in the kingdom of heaven--the same kingdom I will be in.

That's groovy. I would probably get the feeling that many would be in the same kingdom of heaven as me also. Such is the eternal nature and redemptive powers of Christ's restored gospel.

So, this "minor" different between reform and restoration (resurrection???) is actually quite significant, imho.

Perhaps you're right. As someone who believes in a restoration, most of those who believe in a reformation think I'm most likely going to hell. As someone who believes in a restoration, I tend to think those who believe in a reformation will have a good chance of going to heaven.

The difference does seem to be significant.

[sixpacktr]

<div class='quotemain'>

I know what we teach, and of course I believe that. However, I guess what I'm getting at is this: do the Protestant religions consider themselves as a reform of a corrupt church, one that had apostasized, or as reformers of the true church that had gotten slightly out of the way? Do the Protestant religions still consider the Catholic church as God's church, just like their's is (kind of a "multiple ways to heaven" approach)?

Thanks for your input...

Most Protestants follow Luther in believing that it is faith that leads to heaven, through grace--a faith that produces works (lots of faith/works threads going already B) ). Therefore, it's not the church or apostolic succession (authority) that leads to the Kingdom of God, it's faith in Jesus, repentence from sin, and embracing the eternal life he offers.

With that in mind, all churches might be labeled "corrupt" (imperfect). But, from the Protestant perspective, there is always a remnant--always those believers who are heaven-bound, despite difficulties in the household of faith.

To give you a local example. There was a church in our area that, from an evangelical perspective, was a strong, Bible-believing, soul-saving, disciple-growing group. A wave of spiritual fadishness and false teaching came through, and the leadership chose to embrace it. Over the course of about two years the church collapsed, some families were deeply hurt, and today the campus is a law enforcement training center.

So, what happened to the people? A few weak ones probably fell away. Others filtered into surrounding churches that maintained a true faith. We have at least one of those couples in our church.

Most Protestants reject the idea that salvation is found in church authority and rituals and church offices (priesthood that is granted by humans). Rather, we believe all followers of Christ are called as mediators between God and those not reconciled to him. We are all evangelists, all missionaries, and ambassadors. Our leaders (pastors, etc.) are really coaches, training the team for spiritual work.

Thanks for your input PC, but I'm still not getting your feelings towards the Catholics (and it is probably just me, I've been up all night and so I'm really in a fuzzy place right now! ). Do you, or do the Protestant churches believe that the Catholics are "out of the way" and that the Protestants had to bring it back to faith based, and not ritual/ordinance based? Or do you accept that Catholicism is still another way of getting back to heaven, that they just stress a different method (rituals/ordinances, etc)?

Thanks.

[CrimsonKairos]

Something a-train pointed out awhile ago (and he hasn't posted in awhile which is a darn shame) is that in Amos the Lord says the he will send a famine of hearing the words of the Lord. A-train interpreted that to mean that the Lord would take his Church from the earth (meaning apostolic keys of priesthood authority and some doctrines) for wisdom known only to himself and the Father and Spirit.

This is a compelling position that is not oft discussed and might be worth exploring more. One of my older brothers left the LDS Church ostensibly because he could not stomach the idea that God's Church could be taken from the earth against His omnipotent Will. My brother is now Eastern Orthodox Catholic, favoring their authority over the Roman Catholic flavor.

Some may ask, "Why would God take His Church from the earth only a century or so after establishing it?!" I won't even pretend to know the answer to that one. I also can't tell you why Jesus came to earth when he did, instead of centuries earlier or later. There are some things that--for now--we can only speculate about, and that most poorly. But a lack of an answer does not rule out the plausibility of the assertion that begs the question.

[prisonchaplain]

LDS believe that Christ is at the head of the Church, so thusly it is Christ who is the "gatekeeper."

It would be difficult for one that does not have proper authority and has not observed the sacraments of God's restored church, to find entry into the Celestial Kingdom. Even those who have joined and been baptised into the LDS faith, must receive an authorized recommendation before engaging in temple work (no desire to discuss details here). So, yes, Christ is the ultimate head--but approval comes through human church, not a direct personal revelation from God, or from Scripture.

I would probably get the feeling that many would be in the same kingdom of heaven as me also. Such is the eternal nature and redemptive powers of Christ's restored gospel.

As someone who believes in a restoration, most of those who believe in a reformation think I'm most likely going to hell. As someone who believes in a restoration, I tend to think those who believe in a reformation will have a good chance of going to heaven.

The difference does seem to be significant.

Do you really believe that most of the faithful in a Methodist Church you might happen to visit, would make it with you into the Celestial Kingdom?

As for who gets into hell, I I leave the ultimate judgement to God, and simply encourage everyone to seek him in sincerity, vigorously striving for his truth. The Old Testament, New Testament, and LDS revelations all contain promises that those who seek our LORD in this way will find him.

[Doctor Steuss]

It would be difficult for one that does not have proper authority and has not observed the sacraments of God's restored church, to find entry into the Celestial Kingdom. Even those who have joined and been baptised into the LDS faith, must receive an authorized recommendation before engaging in temple work (no desire to discuss details here). So, yes, Christ is the ultimate head--but approval comes through human church, not a direct personal revelation from God, or from Scripture.

And this we may differ on. It comes through a “human Church” that receives direct personal revelation from G-d. Also, the TR interview is based on an honor system (i.e., it isn’t the SP or Bishop that prevents you from getting a Recommend, it is you that prevents you from getting a Recommend).

Also, you seem to be overlooking the LDS concept of redemption of the dead. IF a mistake were to be made in regards to someone entering into a covenant of G-d, I’m certain it would be worked out during the Millennial reign of the Savior.

Do you really believe that most of the faithful in a Methodist Church you might happen to visit, would make it with you into the Celestial Kingdom?

No. But I don’t believe that most faithful LDS that I might happen to visit would make it into the CK either. Heck, right now in my life I’m pretty dang sure I’m not going to make it. I can only hope that Christ isn’t as critical of me as I am of myself.

As for who gets into hell, I I leave the ultimate judgement to God, and simply encourage everyone to seek him in sincerity, vigorously striving for his truth. The Old Testament, New Testament, and LDS revelations all contain promises that those who seek our LORD in this way will find him.

Spoken like a true disciple of the risen Lord.

[prisonchaplain]

Sixpackter asks me what I think of Catholics and salvation. Personally, I disagree with the adoration of Mary, with prayers through the saints, with the belief that Christ is literally consumed at the mass, and with the belief that salvation is imparted through sacraments. At the same time, amongst committed Catholics, most have repented of their sins, believe Jesus is the source of salvation, and we do agree on the nature of God, Christ, and humanity. This is the Church that God used to compile our canon of Scripture, and most of the doctrines we still hold to. So, I have many concerns about Catholic teaching and practice, but do not condemn the church or its people as dead or absolutely apostate.

On the other hand, many of my protestant bretheren would disagree with me, and say that Catholics teach a works-salvation, and encourage idolatry.

In the latter case, it would still be argued that there was always a remnant that practiced true faith, and again, that Christ was not reliant on human organization nor church leadership to impart salvation.

Something a-train pointed out awhile ago (and he hasn't posted in awhile which is a darn shame) is that in Amos the Lord says the he will send a famine of hearing the words of the Lord. A-train interpreted that to mean that the Lord would take his Church from the earth (meaning apostolic keys of priesthood authority and some doctrines) for wisdom known only to himself and the Father and Spirit.

This is a compelling position that is not oft discussed and might be worth exploring more. One of my older brothers left the LDS Church ostensibly because he could not stomach the idea that God's Church could be taken from the earth against His omnipotent Will. My brother is now Eastern Orthodox Catholic, favoring their authority over the Roman Catholic flavor.

Some may ask, "Why would God take His Church from the earth only a century or so after establishing it?!" I won't even pretend to know the answer to that one. I also can't tell you why Jesus came to earth when he did, instead of centuries earlier or later. There are some things that--for now--we can only speculate about, and that most poorly. But a lack of an answer does not rule out the plausibility of the assertion that begs the question.

The short answer is that there certainly was a "famine" for 1500 years. Famine = lack, not absolute non-existence.

No. But I don’t believe that most faithful LDS that I might happen to visit would make it into the CK either. Heck, right now in my life I’m pretty dang sure I’m not going to make it. I can only hope that Christ isn’t as critical of me as I am of myself.

This sounds like something most Christians in most churches would say. Without demanding perfection, is it reasonable for us to expect that a restoration church would be several steps above the others in the character-level of its followers?

IMHO, believers do outperform nonbelievers. However, I do not hear enough from any particular sect, to believe that they have significantly better than the others.

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

IMHO, believers do outperform nonbelievers. However, I do not hear enough from any particular sect, to believe that they have significantly better than the others.

I agree that they tend to "outperform" nonbelievers. But at the same time, I think believers are held to a higher accountability than nonbelievers.

Luke 12: 48

But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

Also (I think this LDS scripture puts it a little more concisely)...

D&C 82: 3

For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation.

[Jason]

There's a third option that I've recently been seeing put forth by some non-denominationalists.

The creation of "authority" was the apostasy. I've never seen any evidence put forth (other than a few biblical proof-texts). But once you look at the ANF, I think (IMHO) it becomes a strenuous position to maintain (unless of course they think they church apostatized directly after Christ's death).

A cursory analysis of the 1st and 2nd century Church demonstrates very clearly that the Apostles left people in Charge, and "laid hands on them" to confer authority.

This is from the ANF themselves, not some RCC scholar out to prove his side right.

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>

There's a third option that I've recently been seeing put forth by some non-denominationalists.

The creation of "authority" was the apostasy. I've never seen any evidence put forth (other than a few biblical proof-texts). But once you look at the ANF, I think (IMHO) it becomes a strenuous position to maintain (unless of course they think they church apostatized directly after Christ's death).

A cursory analysis of the 1st and 2nd century Church demonstrates very clearly that the Apostles left people in Charge, and "laid hands on them" to confer authority.

This is from the ANF themselves, not some RCC scholar out to prove his side right.

Your point being?

I mean, I don't remember your exact history, but weren't you once ordained in the Church?

That hardly means that you are in a position to function in authority now.

What's up with Masonry?

[Jason]

Your point being?

That the idea of an established Priesthood authority, seperate from the Priesthood of all believers, was established very early by the original apostles.

I mean, I don't remember your exact history, but weren't you once ordained in the Church?

Yep.

That hardly means that you are in a position to function in authority now.

In the LDS Church? True. What's your point?

What's up with Masonry?

Why? You thinking of traveling East?

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

[The only difference I see between Protestantism and the LDS is one believed a reformation was needed whereas the other believed a restoration was needed. ... We all think we have the best “truth,” the only difference is that the LDS officially believe they have it while everyone else unofficially believes they have it.

You are correct in the broadest sense. Evangelicals in particular, and most Protestants, and to some extent, even most Catholics, do believe there is one way of salvation--through Jesus Christ. So, in essence, we do insist that only Christians (and perhaps some Jews) will enter the kingdom of heaven.

However, what the LDS have done is officially declared the Church a gatekeeper to the Celestial Kingdom. I can worship God in a Methodist, Episcopalean, Baptist, Pentecostal, and even a Catholic Church. I would look around and believe that most in the company would be with me in the kingdom of heaven--the same kingdom I will be in.

So, this "minor" different between reform and restoration (resurrection???) is actually quite significant, imho.

Very good. In essence the works and kingdom of G-d cannot be reformed by man and is distinct and different from what any man or society of men would have in mind or could do - regardless of how righteous the man or men.

Following the murder of the Prophet Joseph (death by religious extremist in the name of their traditionally approved and widely accepted Christian G-d); the LDS were driven from their homes and country into the wilderness. Once established the LDS worked to become a state but their territory was divided and they were denied. When at last they were granted statehood they desired that their state be called Deseret. This was denied them and in some interesting last minute moves by the enemies of the LDS that forced the name of Utah. No one realized that this was fulfillment of prophesy in the same manner that Jesus fulfilled prophesy concerning where he was born despite being from Galilee.

The name Utah in the language of the Native American Ute people means “Top of the Mountains”. (See Isaiah 2: 2-5) No one but G-d could have brought forth such a thing.

The Traveler

[sixpacktr]

No. But I don’t believe that most faithful LDS that I might happen to visit would make it into the CK either. Heck, right now in my life I’m pretty dang sure I’m not going to make it. I can only hope that Christ isn’t as critical of me as I am of myself.

Doc S,

I have to disagree with you there. I felt the same way for many, many years. In fact, when I was a know-it-all teenager at BYU many many years ago my roommate posed the question to me "how many people here on campus do you think will make it to the CK?" (there were about 24000 students then). I told him "15". He said "Thousand? I think that is a tad low" and I said, "No, 15, period.". I KNEW I wasn't going to make it, and I hadn't done anything really BAD in my life. I spent 2 years preaching repentance, etc., and still didn't think it applied to me.

Then I read Bro Robinson's book "Believing Christ" and several other books, including some by Blaine and Brent Yorgansen, and realized that I had denied for many years the beauty and importance of the atonement, that even I could be saved in the CK. It ain't easy, I know, but it is doable, very doable.

Bro Nibley brought up that topic again and again in his classes and books, and stated that the key wasn't how high you were on the ladder, but the direction you were going in that made all the difference to the Lord, and I wholeheartedly agree with that. The pitfall is that some then take that as license to "eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow I'll repent" forgetting entirely the Lord's parable of the Rich man with the barns, when the Lord told the self-satisfied man, "thou fool, tonight thy soul shall be required of thee".

The basic tenets of the church, and what we should always focus on are 1) faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and 2) repentance. IOW, the atonement and its complete and total relevance in our everyday life...

-------------------------------------------------------

PC,

Thanks for your input. I appreciate it. I will say, however, that I have never believed that ONLY LDS will make it to the CK. I think that a lot of us will be surprised at who got in before us! But I do believe that those that do inherit the CK will have to accept the covenants and ordinances that are taught in the temples, which is why we do baptisms for the dead, etc. We believe those to be saving ordinances, and necessary to walk back into the presence of our HF.

I know that we will disagree on that, and that is okay. But while I believe that our church has all truth (just as others in other churches do as well), I also believe that God will reward those that honestly and actively seek to do his will and live according to the light they have. That, too, is another area where I think that "mainstream" Christianity and the LDS diverge, because we do believe that all of God's children, regardless of religion, will have an opportunity to accept Christ, even in the afterlife (before the judgement) and inherit kingdoms of glory. If I understand it correctly (and if I'm wrong, please correct my ignorance) the other Christian church's consign people that don't accept Christ in this life to hell, even if they never even had the opportunity to hear the gospel or learn of Christ. IOW, billions and billions of our HF's children in Africa, India, China, for instance, at this moment would be consigned to hell.

Of course I'm going to say this, but our teachings seem more "fair", and more in line with a just and merciful God than those of other churches, but again, I'm LDS! Of course I adhere to that belief.